CAPITALISM IS SUPERIOR TO SOCIALISM

CAPITALISM IS SUPERIOR TO SOCIALISM

1. THERE SHOULD BE NO LIMITS TO CAPITALISM

Ayn Rand, Philosopher, “The Objectivist Ethics,” in Harry Binswanger (Ed.). THE AYN RAND LEXICON, 1988, p. 57.

When I say “capitalism,” I mean a full pure, uncontrolled, unregulated laissez-faire capitalism--with a separation of state and economics, in the same way and for the same reasons as the separation of state and church.

Ayn Rand, Philosopher, CAPITALISM: THE UNKNOWN IDEAL, 1966, p. 38. Laissez-faire capitalism is the only social system based on the recognition of individual tights and, therefore, the only system that bans force from social relationships. By the nature of its basic principles and interests, it is the only system fundamentally opposed to war.

Ayn Rand, Philosopher, PHILOSOPHY: WHO NEEDS IT, 1982, p. 66.

Never mind the low wages and the harsh living conditions of the early years of capitalism. They were all that the national economies of the time could afford. Capitalism did not create poverty--it inherited it.

Compared to the centuries of precapitalist starvation, the living conditions of the poor in the early years of capitalism were the first chance the poor had ever had to survive. As proof--the enormous growth of the European population during the nineteenth century, a growth of over 300 per cent, as compared to the previous growth of something like 3 per cent per century.

Ayn Rand, Philosopher, “The Monument Builders,” in Harry Binswanger (Ed.). THE AYN RAND LEXICON, 1988, p. 464.

There is no difference between the principles, policies and practical results of socialism--and those of any historical or prehistorical tyranny. Socialism is merely democratic absolute monarchy--that is, a system of absolutism without a fixed head, open to seizure of power by all comers, by nay ruthless climber, opportunist, adventurer, demagogue or thug. When you consider socialism, do not fool yourself about its nature. Remember that there is no such dichotomy as “human rights” versus “property rights.” No human rights can exist without property tights. Since material goods are produced by the mind and effort of individual men, and are needed to sustain their lives, if the producer does not own the result of his effort, he does not own his life. To deny property rights means to turn men into property owned by the state. Whoever claims the “tight” to redistribute” the wealth produced by others is claiming the “tight” to treat human beings as chattel.
5. SOCIALISM IS IRRATIONAL AND IMPRACTICAL

Ayn Rand, Philosopher, “Faith and Force: The Destroyers of the Modern World,” in Harry Binswanger (Ed.). THE AYN RAND LEXICON, 1988, p.465.

The fallacies and contradictions in the economic theories of socialism were exposed and refuted time and time again, in the Nineteenth Century as well as today. This did not and does not stop anyone: it is not an issue of economics, but of morality. The intellectuals and the so-called idealists were determined to make socialism work. How? By that magic means of all irrationalists: somehow.

Answering Objectivism

Introduction

It’s a pleasure to be writing on the philosophical errors of one of the weakest ideological movements ever. Objectivism, a perverse melting pot of conservative laissez-faire economics, radical anarchist individualism, and heterosexist hedonism, is Ayn Rand’s vision of what reason concludes must be the universal truth about metaphysics, epistemology, ethics, and politics. John W. Robbins’ book long critique of Ayn Rand offers a quotation by Benjamin Franklin: “So convenient a thing it is to be a reasonable creature, since it enables one to find or make a reason for everything one has a mind to do.” Ayn Rand was certainly a master of rationalizing what her egotism demanded for satisfaction. Objectivism makes claims to individuality while historically being a greater force for close-mindedness and collectivism.